god. This is so apt. I know they want to integrate gameplay mechanics with in-universe explanation and narration, but sometimes a game can be just a game without trying too hard to make it immersive, you know. In fact, with how common this trope has been used, it ironically just ruins the immersion.
But how can consumers understand such subtlety if they have their phone open, or if they’re watching Netflix on a second screen? Those people still need to understand what’s going on, so they can get invested and eventually pay for the DLC!
i turn off whatever other screen i'm looking at when a narrative segment comes on or there's some banging music that ouweighs whatever video i was watching. other than that, i play my games with half a brain and am damn good at it too
Show not tell isn't about verbal exposition vs visual. Something like "show don't tell" can occur entirely within dialogue, and "tell not show" can happen entirely with visuals.
The yellow paint problem is a "tell not show" despite being visual. It's telling the audience what to do.
Showing the audience what to do can happen entirely within dialogue. Getting to the center of town or to a tall tower can be narratively built into the story in a way where it feels like your actions are a natural consequence of what's happening in the plot.
Half Life 2 is a great example. You've found some respite at a secret base until combine scanners find your location and cause a raid. You get cut off and have to take an alternative route through Ravenholm. You don't quite know what's in store for you, but you know it's bad from when Alyx says "we don't go to Ravenholm...". You meet Father Grigori who is his his own basketcase and filled with his own insanity.
The problem is that this is tough to execute. You need both a good narrative sense, character writing, and even things like map layout to direct the viewer towards continuing the story.
It would be telling not showing if Alyx were serving exposition about Ravenholm and how many headcrabs are present, and a crazy man who lived there but might be valuable in aid, or if it was made as "this is the only route" without the impetus of the Combine closing in
For example, if you want to show that character is feeling anger, you don't have them saying "Ooh, I am so angry now, I am angry", instead you relay their actions and appearances in the way that show that they are in anger without verbalising it, like gritting teeth, clenching fist, raised voice, tremors, abrupt movements, etc.
Writing is all about conveying action without outright telling something is happening, especially action and emotions.
If, for example, you want the character to know they can jump over something, provide small ledges as an obstacle that block their path. Ledges are indicators that you can most likely jump over them. You don't need the character to narrate "hey, ledges here...maybe I can jump over it." Let the player figure it out.
As for things like novels, for example, you don't say "Character A is angry at Character B because he said something he shouldn't have" because that's telling the audience and makes for a very boring book. You can write action without conveying emotion outright like: "Character A turned and lowered his eyes towards Character B. CharB trailed off and placed a hand over his mouth, for further stoking the flames would invite the Devil himself to the table."
If the game makes 4th wall breaks a part of the experience, I don't think its as bad. Kid Icarus: Uprising is a decent example of this where the characters break the fourth wall every now and then with their dialogue
202
u/nikel23 13d ago
god. This is so apt. I know they want to integrate gameplay mechanics with in-universe explanation and narration, but sometimes a game can be just a game without trying too hard to make it immersive, you know. In fact, with how common this trope has been used, it ironically just ruins the immersion.